Maybe a good idea, but I doubt it will fly.. With the advent of the FOR command it is simple to put "CP FOR abc CMD CLOSE CONS" in a WAKEUP file.
But if they did buy it how about an enhancement to XAUTOLOG with AT hh:mm:ss? Come to think of it a full date would be better yet.. AT mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss ??? On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Martin Zimelis <martin.zime...@gmail.com>wrote: > David's comment is a perfect example of the reason Rich is exactly right: > The requirement should specify the effect you want, not the method of > implementation. > > And don't forget to include the business case for the enhancement in the > requirement. > > Marty > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:53 PM, David Boyes <dbo...@sinenomine.net>wrote: > >> #2, but for clarity: >> >> A) hh:mm:ss is based on CP time, or the virtual TOD in the virtual >> machine? >> B) what happens in a SSI configuration if a virtual machine moves to a new >> CP with a different clock? >> >> * >> * >> If only #2 were implemented, the new SPOOL command could be entered in the >> directory entry of such servers via the 'COMMAND' statement, providing the >> same facility with lower CP coding and documentation requirements. New >> products could be distributed with sample directory entries containing the >> "AT hh:mm:ss" included, perhaps as a comment. >> >> >> >
